Carl Cascone's page

I have never allowed Summoner or Gunslinger.

All the other classes I allow. The summoner just seems a completely complicated redundant class. And I play in FR without Guns.

Terquem wrote:

I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.

So I am sort of on the fence about this as far as any development of 5e is concerned. I don’t think I would like to see this aspect of 4e carried over, but then again I understand a lot of players liked the diversity it opened up in battles.

I guess I like the idea of combat being the domain of the physical ability scores, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and Magic being the domain of the mental ability scores, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.

See, I liked how I didn't have to be MAD (multiple attribute dependant) for characters that can cast a bit and are supposed to fight on the front lines. A most prime example of this is the Paladin. By having him use Charisma for his attacks, he doens't have to put a TON of emphasis on Strength and Charisma fueled a lot of his Mo-jo too. I love that sort of synergy.

I also think the only reason physical wepaon attacks are only done through Str and Dex was just to simulate real-world physics (something that is a bit controversial, so I'll steer clear) and that when you force classes to use them AND have a resonable amount of points in other attributes to their other stuff well....it causes problems. The 3E paladin needed high Strength for his attacks, moderate Constitution for HP due to him being on the front lines, moderate- to high-Charisma that fuels ALL of his class features, and moderate-Wisdom because it's what his spells were pulled from. PF made his spellcasting tie...

This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.

Terquem wrote:

It seems silly to complain that Vancian magic, “Doesn’t make sense,” ...

Well, I think the main problem is that Vancian magic is almost entirely unlike any system of magic portrayed in popular literature / film / folklore / etc. The only things that are really similar are 1) very obscure works that have only been salvaged from complete obscurity because of their influence on Dungeons & Dragons; or 2) works that are themselves direct adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons.

Jack Vance just did a good job explaining his magic system. Any other magic system from the time could easily have worked that way, including folklore.

It is not inherently better or worse than any other magic system, but it is the BEST system for any edition of Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder.

"We tolerate redheads" and "we tolerate homosexuals" are two entirely different things, no matter how hard you try to reduce both sentences to pure logic value.

considering that haircolour and eye colour have been used as a screening tool for genocide, and is currently used for profiling in law enforcement and US security I think a case can be made that intolerance can be considered an absolute. I have yet to hear of law enforcement pulling someone over because they look gay.

None of what I say is equating a ginger struggle with a gay struggle currently. If a society is intolerant of gingers, the consequences could be as harsh. My wife's grandfather escaped aushwitz and was found later by haircolor according to him. He escaped that place Twice. The second time was for good! :)

Homosexuality is the focus of intolerance now, but there were others who were discriminated against for reasons just as stupid.

They refer to Harsk as little bear. Lem is Goldilocks. Everything from little bear is just right.

To be bluntly honest; to me any supplement book that does not at least include one new class (I give exceptions to Beastiaries and will give a free pass to the upcoming Race book since that will have a myriad of player races to make up for it) is completely worthless, both as a GM and a player.

Considering how long it takes between books adding in new classes, even if only at the rate of one per book goes a long way towards keeping the game fresh. You can throw as many 'variants' as you want but at the end of the day a Fighter is a Fighter, a Monk is a Monk. Sometimes you want to play something different.

Yes, there are always the class-brimming 3.5 books. Yes, there is always homebrew. Yes, there is always 3rd party material. But for every "Yes, there is a -----" there is always a "No, I do not allow non-official material GM". People underestimate the sheer number of GMs that actually prefer to never even consider 3rd party material, homebrew is even considered a dirtier word in my experience. Not so sure what the general sentiment is on the backwards compatibility aspect of the game though as that's rather unique to PF-3.5 in my area.

So again, even if it's just one 'official' class per book; it goes a long way towards helping convince me to shell out the money to buy it.

There is nothing wrong with a GM not allowing a 3pp class. I certainly do not unless I own the book from which the class was printed. If a player in the game store asks if he can play class X from 3pp book Y my answer will always be no unless I have bought the book and I am familiar with the class.

Really with archetypes, I do not see the need for more classes in a book. The archetype development was brilliant and a fantastic tweaking of the class substitution levels. Gunslinger and Magus filled a need (but I do not include gunslinger as a playable option in my game), Samurai and Ninja added flavor, and there is very little one can't do with the available archetypes.

Options are good, but I feel there is a point where options becomes supersaturated like crystal solution. There is creativity in figuring out a character concept with the options available.

Mike Mearls in the escapist article D&D Future writes about how too many options can cause the common language of people who play the game to get distorted. I fully agree with that sentiment.

I was worried Paizo was adding to many options. But they have kept the line pretty solid. I find most of their options to be useful, and not just filler. I find too many of their archetypes to be UNDERPOWERED however.

Words of Power was a nice addition I would never use, but was a worthwhile part of Ultimate Magic. When WOTC added soul magic I think it was INCARNUM they had a whole book about it. I did not buy that book and know very little about the option. Words of Power took up a nice chapter, I am aware of it, and for instance if I ever wanted to run a SKYRIM campaign it would be very useful. I am glad they did not dedicate a book to it. The Ultimate Guides have provided needed options without causing saturation. It seems Pathfinder has learned from the mistakes of its predecessor.

Yeah, LotR alone is half bad. It's Silmarillion where lembas hits the fan.

silmarillion was published after his death from notes. It is hard to find the characteristics of a novel within the silmarillion.

Game novels explore the campaign world. Tolkein, moorcock and others explore culture through their fantasy.

I guess Arthur, Cu Chulain, Beowulf, Gilgamesh, and all the others didn't do the job.

quite the contrary, as proffeseur tolkein was an authority on heroic literature. Middle earth was inspired by these tales. Gygax drew the skeleton of d&d through tolkein and fleshed it out with the other worthy writers.

SmiloDan wrote:

You know how the vast majority of classes are technologically neutral? By this, I mean they are effective and flavorful through all sorts of levels of technology, from Stone Age and Bronze Age, through Dark Age, Medieval, and Renaissance, and into Weird West Industrial, Victorian, Steampunk, and beyond, all the way to d20 Modern (and Future) Faeriepunk and Spelljamming Spacefaring campaigns.

But the Gunslinger is an odd class in that it is specifically based on a specific piece of technology.

How would you have a Wizard before writing was invented? And you certainly wouldn't have Samurai in the Stone Age, or Paladins in pre-tribal societies. And archers really don't work very well in super high tech societies when faced against crackshot laser marksmen.

Technology does not exist as a separate entity, it both shapes and is shaped by the cultures that practice it.

I think the OP is speaking of the default assumption. The Pathfinder core rules seems to be written with Dark Ages to renaissance tech in mind. Everyone I know trims down the available classes for what would fit in their campaigns, but that is because they are working outside the base assumption of the rules. I realize this is not stated but the tech level of core is implied.

But Gunslinger is the only class that does not fit in the Dark Ages to Renaissance assumption. If I want to play a Dark Ages Style campaign, I can use all classes Except the gunslinger. I can even make a case for Alchemist. The fact that the gunslinger relies on tech from a narrow period within that scope can be problematic.

Generally if you were going to run Dark ages you would have to trim the available equiptment. If you wanted to make only plausible classes than you would have to eliminate Gunslinger because its class abilities rely on one piece of equiptment that would not be available to the Dark Age mileu. This is the only class where one would have to do that. All others use medieval tech and magic.

A strong warrior smashing down a FOOT THICK TREE with A FEW BLOWS??? That sure is some warrior. Otherwise, I generally agree with you. Except, now chop down that tree with an adamantine spear or sap........

I would do that to show off how cool I am with the hardest material in the known universe. Then after everyone is impressed at how well my spear can pierce the tree, I am going to put it down and ask one of them if I can borrow their iron axe.

Having had the teasing about an amour bonus (when trying to correct my spelling of 'armour' to American spelling) and not realizing it's not spelled Beastiary. (Though now in my mind I pronounce it best-ee-air-ee) I'm just going to +1 Neil's post.

Part of writing professionally (says the guy who doesn't) is conforming to the style of your employer. Just as Paizo doesn't want antipaladins wearing armor made of living babies for thematic reasons, they don't want extra 'u's in their armor, or color.

If it helps, think that Wonder Woman's wondrous costume is filled with wonderful cleavage. ;-)

I was under the impression that Paizo did not want antipaladins wearing armor made of babies because it is really impractical, would be uncomfortable, and whiny. It also would not protect the antipaladin well.

:)

I have to say that most of my problems with 4th edition are purely from a fluff perspective. I absolutely adored reading Realmslore and Forgotten Realms fiction, R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood and the like; however in the last three years I have seen all of these characters, some with twenty plus years of character building, torn down. These characters were more than written fiction to me, they were friends during difficult times in my life, the people (or Drow) that I got to live vicariously through when I was bored, the reassurance that their really was justice in the world and that everything would turn out for the best if I believed and tried hard enough. Maybe it's crazy for me to hold these characters in such high regard, but they sure as hell deserved better than getting greased because a company decided to try a new marketing focus. All I know is many of my friends on Faerun are now dead to the world of literature, and no true resurrection spell that I or any of my characters ever knew can ever truly bring them back. Just my two copper pieces though.

Your really not crazy. There are lots of studies of fictional characters providing the role of supporter to people in troubled times. When MASH ended, there was an influx of people angry at the show ending. They were considered 'friends'. Studies funny enough from what I have read have focused on Soap Operas.

I'm with you. I was not happy with 4e, but I was willing to adapt, until they made the new 4e campaign world which resembled the good realms in name only. Intellectual laziness won the Realms debate.

I like the Golarion gods. But I think they are sometimes too broad. That said however I added deities to the pantheon of primary gods.

I like Mielikki, so I brought her in with the same portfolio she had in FR. Patron goddess of Rangers, and goddess of Forests and dryads. I play Gozreh as more of the WEATHER and WATER god.

I added Sharess and made Calistria the goddess of vengeance. Thor, Odin, and Loki are all gods of the Ulfen (Gee why?).

Finally I took natural beasts away from Yeenoghu. Oh right that's Lamashtu.

I am not sure if I want to bash Lamashtu back into 'just' demonlord realm, and have another god steal her portfolio.

I also kept the standard race gods. Corellon is the god of the elves, Moradin IS Torag, but Torag is worshipped by humans instead of dwarves.

Garl Glittergold is there too:)

An original AP on Akiton giving homage to Edgar Rice Burrows and Michael Moorcock!

PC's should not be playing the NPC classes. However I have been thinking of the farmboy turns hero trope in context of the commoner, and led me to an adventure idea.

Instead of starting all PC's out at 1st level, I would let them start as say 10th level commoners, and as they gain experience they replace their highest commoner level with an adventurer level.

For example Mike the 10th level commoner, achieves 2000 xp. This would normally of course raise his 1st level character to level 2. Instead at 2000 XP he gets his 1st level of Base Class. He chooses fighter and so becomes a level fighter 1/commoner 9. This would continue until all of his levels are replaced through lvl 1-10 (or really 2-11) experience progression, at which time he will advance normally.

In the example above, I would let the players pick an NPC class, and they would start at level 10 (with all ability adjustments and normal advancement feats). As they gain in level they would replace the NPC saves and BAB with the new saves and BAB. For example Mike the commoner would recalculate FRW and BAB with Level 1 fighter bonuses; he would replace any gains made at level 10 commoner with level 1 fighter.

The BAB of a level 10 commoner is +5. f/r/w = 3/3/3 respectively

Upon attaining level one fighter he would now have bonuses of:

Fighter 1/Commoner 9: BAB= +5. f/r/w = 5/3/3 respectively. +1 Bonus feat for fighter.

It would keep the game around CR 8-10 for quite awhile. Essentially your starting at 10th level but actual level advancement is halted while still giving rewards.

Even if the character was a fighter 1/Warrior 9 he would still be more powerful because though his BAB and Save progression does not change he gets fighter bonus feats and powers.

I imagine Golarion NPC's with a mix of NPC/Base Class levels to have achieved levels in this way.

It would not be like Gestalt. If an expert chose to replace a level with Fighter or wizard he would LOSE skill points.

I would give the PC's the choice to start out as any NPC class, maybe offering a bonus feat for taking commoner.

Thoughts on this?

Grand Magus wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

It seems like you're trying to argue that 4E "isn't D&D" because it represented an unprecedented mechanical break from all previous editions.

This is my opinion too.

Key word being opinion. Like I said, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with opinions being called facts.

If someone is presenting an opinion, it is not necessarily the job of the writer to present it as opinion. There is also responsibility of the reader to understand when something is opinion.

Clearly, just about anything involving RPG's is opinion other than statistical probability. People need to get past that. In our current Junk Media of CNN-FOX 24 news cycle, how can one function without being able to distinguish?

I actually claim that edition wars start because people get their feathers ruffled over opinion they think is fact. Opinion is stated neutrally all of the time.

Politicians do it with climate change, with evolution, with abortion, with EVERYTHING. On lighter topics like RPG's it is practically self evident that what is being touted is opinion. If a politician decides to claim "Climate change is junk science," then it is up to the politician to defend his false claim.

If someone asks me why I don't play 4e, and my answer was "It is not real D&D," (I don't just give that answer) the questioner should be able to recognize that as opinion.

When someone writes "In my opinion goblins are easy to kill," if your experience is different you may try to sway that opinion.

If a person writes "Goblins are easy to kill," and your experience is different, you are going to engage in dialogue to convince the person of the contrary all of the same.

The first is STATED as opinion, the writer is holding the readers hand. The second is clearly an opinion still, but the onus is on the reader to recognize it as such.

Recognizing bias is the job of the reader.

As was the 2e to 3e. Sure as noted there was the conversion guide - but your character didn't really work as it did anymore. The mechanics were vastly different. Same situation as we have 3e to 4e. But unlike when they went 2e --> 3e, I decided to play the new game before forming an opinion. As many have said, if you play 4e D&D like 3e you will have issues, play 4e like 4e and its not a bad wee game. I found the same thing when we played 3e like we played 1e/2e - 3e sucked too. Time and experience changed our minds, except at levels 16+ where 3.5e blew apart and was not fun at all (our experience at any rate).

DMing a 4e Essentials only game,
S.

I originally played this horrible hybrid between AD&D and 3rd edition. Your right it worked terribly, so I knew the rules system well enough I could convert the campaign over rather easily.

I felt 4e was too much of a departure for me to do that. I was quite familiar with the rules by the time I made the decision that 4e did not play right for me. I occasionally play the game, but even if 4e was under a different name than D&D I would play it as casually as I do now. To Most members of my group it felt to much like a skirmish game, and we would either stick with 3rd edition or just find another game to play and leave D&D behind.

People have different experiences, but I felt 3rd edition though it stressed combat more than previous iterations was much closer to the D&D I knew.

FOR ME, 4e did not play the way I was used to playing D&D. 3rd edition even after I shifted from 2nd did. That is the big difference. I was able to make 3rd edition work smoothly even being resistant to the shift. I was unable to make 4e work even while being excited about it. It proved to be very disappointing.

I think one thing that mattered is the classes just changed far to much for my liking. Archer pigeon holed to Ranger (with no spells), Rogue now being a scrapper, everyone with powers like the wizard. It was not the D&D I knew, and I could not get it to work. True, I probably approached it from a 3rd edition percepective. That is the way I found fun to play, and for that 4e did not work. For me since it cannot meet the way I play, it failed. Like WHite Wolf failed for me which has many many players, many of whom I gamed with. I felt more like we were having our confrontation tournaments instead of our RPG sessions.

I am a very story heavy DM, but I also like the game part, that is why I do not direct plays. 4e system did not allow me to tell the stories I wnated to tell.

Drizzt is hilarious if you learn about his actual history and how/why RA Salvatore made him. He was created literally at the last minute by RA Salvatore babbling something random out in order to sell his first book.

The original model for Drizzt was Daryth the arabian influenced character from the Moonshae novels. But yes he was not meant to be the archetypical character he is now.

Mournblade94 wrote:

But, ...

This makes me sad.

Maybe you can make like 50 of them and we can fight for it in your Washington arena.

BOOOOO!

...I'm having visions of Thunderdome now, thank you.

MASTERBLASTER RULES PAIZOTOWN!!!!!

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

you need to present a bit more than saying, "There are quotes that support me, buried somewhere on some other forum on the internet."

From the Candlekeep forum:

(The whole thread is HERE)

Ed Greenwood wrote:

Yet it’s happening regardless of my personal wants, and I choose to be onboard trying to paddle and steer, rather than left behind swimming in the water, calling out that perhaps we should have set a different course.

Further:

Ed Greenwood wrote:

I KNOW it hurts when you’ve come to love and cherish a fictional place and characters, that you can enjoy in your imagination, and someone goes and stomps on what you hold precious.

Oh, and in these two quotes, he is specifically speaking of the changes made to 4e FR...

Now, he does go on to say that you don't have to use the new stuff, and that you can run the Realms however you want, but it does indeed illustrate that he cares about and sometimes does not like the changes made...

Thank you for taking the time.

So what does it matter if Ed likes or dislikes the changes WotC made? It's changed and as a Player you can use it how it is, change it to make it better for your needs, or ignore it completely.

It doesn't matter one bit. The fact is though he does care it changed. I think when people say he does not care they are misrepresenting his thoughts is all.

The only game I played in that in fact would qualify for "Forgotten Realms Syndrome" was a game in a homebrew setting where the GM's Generic Powerful Pointy Hat Wizard GMPC tended to overshadow anything the (relatively high-level) party could do. But that was just a crappily designed campaign where the GM was on a continual power trip. Is the "syndrome" we're looking at really just an issue of bad GMing?

So yeah--I think it isn't so much "Forgotten Realms Syndrome" as "Sad Fanboy Syndrome." And it falls in line with the issue of GMs that like to include their own powerful GMPCs into the story rather than run the damn...

I have always thought this. The idea that one could not use the forgotten realms adequately has been thouroughly debunked. It simply was an issue of poor game mastering. forgotten realms worked just fine, the excuses used to rewrite the realms were copouts, as most of the issues stemmed from intellectual laziness ultimately.. They rewrote the realms for all the wrong reasons.

There will always be that one player that doesn't really care about character concept, setting or context of the situation. They will build their character stat first, trying to exploit or flat-out abuse the system, without even being able to come up with a name for their Generic Fightar Dude XII. They will ask to play a completely exotic race for this or that ability, or ignore the plot hooks of the campaign that might offer some nice character concept they can play. Are they playing the game incorrectly because of this?

No.

There is no wrong or right way to play an RPG. If they want to play it like that, they should, and there is nothing you can say that objectively proves that they are doing it wrong. You might dislike them as you want, or decide it's not worth to play with them, but that's just you. Players and even groups like these will likely continue to exist. You may have a solid, experienced group of bros that share your exact same playstyle and love for in depth backgrounds, but most of us aren't in this situation. I've been roleplaying for 7 years, changed various group, and I still can't remember a time when there wasn't at least one of the following:
- a rollplayer that doesn't speak if not to declare his dice result;
- a powergamer that b&~@@es about balance when he rolls a natural 1;
- a rules lawyer that rolls always the cheesiest character possible.
I still had fun. I can't tell them to piss off and make the TRU ROLEPLAYER enjoy their game in peace. They have the same rights as mine, and I wasn't lucky enough to find a group where there wasn't a "That guy".

You either live with this situation, or try to change them by making them more interested in what they are doing. Discuss their characters without being judgemental. Explain the idea behind YOUR character. Discuss the setting, pointing out all the cool stuff that you can play that isn't necessary uberpowerful. If you make them say "cool" about something that is not cheesy for once, about something that is a cool idea and not...

I think there is a proper way to play an RPG.

In all honesty, most players I say I will kick out, usually come around to the proper style for the table so they can stay in the group. There are plenty of goofy characters in my game, but they all have a good reason for it.

All I need to know is whether the tanukis do have grotesquely enlarged scrotums as in some folklore depictions.

Because if yes, then this is book is GLORIOUS.

Some balls are held for charity and some for fancy dress, but when their held for pleasure they're the balls that I like best! My balls are always bouncing from the left and to the right, it's my belief that my big balls should be held every night.

I love Meta plot, but I love that Golarion is having the story told through AP's.

My ultimate Campaign arc is the Fall of the House of Thrune. Crimson Throne's conclusion and my adventures after have made the PC ruler, a member of House Jaggare from Cheliax, King of Korvosa. The PC's also expanded Korvosa to include the holdings. This is Jaggare's first step in overthrowing Thrune.

I am working on Carrion Crown now, and I have a Chelaxian PC in it now to add to this meta plot (But I have nto figured out how to work it in yet).

Once a few are done, I plan on tailoring a 20+ adventure for my players using their favorite characters from the adventure paths to overthrow House Thrune. I envision this to be each player taking their Chelaxian PC from each adventure path, but one never knows.

I love how Paizo manages their novel line to not interfere with the 'world' of Golarion.

I can very well imagine if this world was owned by WOTC having a novel causing the WORLD WOUND to explode as was mentioned in a previous post.

Sorry gotta say it, Saga. Saga, Saga, Saga! If WotC had just used a cleaned up fantasy/D&D focused version of Saga from the start (and hadn't done a fluff cow hunt) they wouldn't have broken the community the way it did.

I'll say it again. SAGA SAGA SAGA SAGA. I thought 4e was going to build off of that, and that was part of my enthusiasm for the new edition.

The fracturing of the community would have been minimal if they stuck with a saga variant.

All the Pics he posted

Thank you for those links you saved me alot of time. I remember when 4e came out and I was defending the art of the books against people that thought the girl on the cover of the PHB was far too skimpy.

There are big deals in this world. Like how about we go after the way women are portrayed in FEMALE fashion magazines and the image that sends to young girls and society at large.

Paizo has a great record with their art. I like to point the very beautiful SEELAH as an example of tasteful art, and honestly Seoni is not dressed impractically.

The only time cheesecake bothers me is when it is a blatant move to sell a product. For example, I think it was Fast Forward that released a Norse supplement. The Cover was a Blond girl, in Bondage leather, wielding two Katana's in a rather sexy pose. I think the picture was GREAT. BUT it annoyed me it was on that supplement. Other than being Blond, there was nothing there to relate her to vikings. Katanas? Black Leather Armor leaving navel exposed? The product might have been great, and normally I would have bought it, but the out of place cover ticked me off.

Paizo and Wizards of the Coast on the other hand I think do a very good job of placing Cheesecake pictures in the right place.

I just wish PAIZO did MORE of it not LESS :)

As for FR Im one of the few that like the changes in 4E and if I want to run pre-Spellplague Faerun I have my 3.5 books.

There should be nothing stopping you from running pre spell plague realms in 4e however.

I was not thrilled with 4e from the beginning. But I think if the developers made the Forgotten Realms more palatable to a number of older fans, ALOT of the migration could have been curtailed.

I understand there are people taht like the realms better now. I am not convinced that there is MORE brand loyalty to FR tahn there was before. FR had a BIG following. On top of 4e changing, Realms fans were told: Those things you like about the realms? Most people do not like that so we are changing that on you as well. We are killing the Goddess of Magic because her type of magic will no longer work in the world.

Not only that, the GREATEST mercantile power in the realms is going to change its harbour into a slum. Lots of areas are now underwater, and there is this NEW continent that just formed out of no where (I can deal with the adding, I had trouble with the taking away)

One cool thing they did was make the lowest level of god (I forgot what it was called... E somthign I think). Oh Exemplar. That was cool! But then they killed all the other gods.

I had no problem with the redundant gods. Just study historical mythology, their were MANY redundant gods.

Also people that liked the realms liked the historical analogs. It was cool to have the British isles, Egypt, Sumeria, Spain, Arabia and make them fantasy. BUT THEN: The developers say no body likes to play D&D with the real world environments. We must make them all fantastical like the cover of a YES album. Meanwhile people were posting.. Wait we like that, but it was lost over the people that could take or leave the realms saying how much better that would be.

the jargon on the internet was: See your old realms was STOOPID. Now you don't have to read volumes of lore to run an adventure. When you never had to before. You started with an area, and went with it. The rest was flavor you could take or leave.

Paizo set themselves up perfect. They had the game that prior edition fans think are the true inheritor of the spirit of D&D, and they made Golarion the spirit of the Realms only with low power. With all the same creators, except Ed Greenwood did not conceive it. But he writes for it.

When I hear how the FR is still ringing strong, I go to Candlekeep which used to be an old home of mine. People are still posting, but they are no longer creating there like they WERE. That tells me something was lost.

I seriously cannot imagine a company bumbling marketing any worse. That is no dig to WOTC, they really did mess up the marketing.

Sissyl wrote:

What I see when I look at 4E,

Man, again?!

Quote:

is a mishmash of various focus-group-design grabs. You have powers you have to choose a few of, just like your action bar in WoW.

Or like any number of other games long-since developed, all of which were not WoW.

Also, in WoW, you know the majority of abilities your class possesses, save a handful of talent-specific abilities. In 4e, you learn only a fraction of the powers available to your class. I guess 4e and WoW are nothing alike!

I mean, if anything, an action bar is an assortment of abilities that you have access to at any given time. Sort of like a Vancian spellcaster's list of daily prepared spells from 3.5/Pathfi-OHWAIT.

Quote:

You have cooldown times (encounter powers) just like WoW.

Do you really want us to start pointing out the cooldown timers in 3.5? Or in Pathfinder? Or maybe you can just accept that complaining about imagined cooldown timers is stupid, and complaining that imagined cooldown timers must make the game just like WoW is even stupider.

Quote:

You have party roles (tank, DPS, healer...) just like WoW.

Or just like D&D has always had. But WoW gave them real names (even though they're not the names used in 4e) so it must be just like WoW!

Quote:

You have Solo and Elite monsters, just like WoW.

Or like any number of other games, including your favorite edition of D&D (and no, I don't care what edition your favorite is; they all had dragons, and dragons have always been solo threats whether they had the word "Solo" scrawled across their forehead or not).

But, I mean, yeah, must be just like WoW. Oh, and WoW is full of bad things that shouldn't come anywhere near your favorite roleplaying game (even though they've actually been a part of your favorite roleplaying game forever) because WoW is dumb, and screw discussing individual game mechanics on their own merit - guilt by mechanical association...

Sissyl's post was valid criticism. Clearly you are frustrated at the criticism, for that I am sorry.

Mournblade94 wrote:

What I care about is that when I state 4e has video game sensibility designs, loads of people jump on me for denigrating 4e or some nonsense like that.

Designing a game like a video game is not necessarily bad, but the play is completley different in TTG's. I see the need for the hyper balance in a video game. Especially an mMO with subscriptions. I have never seen the need to go the extreme that 4e did for a table top game.

As someone who just 'jumped on you for denigrating 4E' - and doesn't feel at all bad about having done so - I want to try, one more time, to explain why we see that statement as objectionable.

1) Because many 4E players don't like 4E 'because it is a video game'. They like it, as an RPG, and find the play exactly like a standard table-top RPG. And everytime you say, "Oh, I get that people like 4E. I don't like that style, but you guys who like it being like a video game, that's fine"... every statement like is making a lot of assumptions about the people that play the game and trying to speak on their behalf. And it is frustrating and, usually, wrong.

I don't like the 4e style there is no secret of that. it is not however because it used video game sensibilities to achieve its design. There is however a different design philosophy and perhaps play style difference in 4e. 4e did not fit my playstyle.

If I tell you 4e fits your play style, and I do not like 4e, HOW is that offensive? I am not a fan of the design philosophies in 4e. How does that mean I think 4e players have the WRONG philosophy?

I get there are people that will condescend. And I did to professor above out of frustration more than anything, but when I sit in the game store and give the younger DM's advice on how to DM encounters, I do not tell them, you know the system is so easy a bird could do it. People want to play it. I tell them how to confront rules problems in general, and how to motivate. I am actually quite proud of the younger DM's that have established 4e campaigns with my help.

2) The statement itself - that 4E is designed like a video - is, as we've tried to show, fundamentally wrong. They didn't aim for better balance in 4E because they wanted it to be like a video game - they aimed for better balance because players wanted better balance. You feel they failed, or went too far, or whatever. I get that. But dismissing the genuine viewpoints of those who wanted that and are happy with what WotC did... that's poor form.

No they used those sensibilities to achieve their goal. That is different than saying it is designed like a video game. Perhaps when they wanted to balance the classes they looked at how City of Heroes does it and took cues from there.

I have been to E3. Steve Jackson sat next to my friend and I (out of chance ONLY) to listen to what they had to say at a game development panel. They then let HIM speak, to tell THEM how the old TTG's solved problems. Game design works across all mediums now.

That is Mostly what I do not like. Video game sensibilities could STILL have been used to create a game I would like, WOTC did not take that road.

3) It is not always explicitly stated, but the implication about "4E is a video game" is often trying to make specific statements about video games. Specifically, that it represents being a simpler system, less concerned about story, more focused on combat and grind and hack-and-slash, with no room for character or plot or RP. Sometimes folks just outright say this, often it is simply implied. And all that baggage is being tossed at 4E, and...

4e IS a simpler system. Even proponents say that. Saying it is a video game does not mean what you think. Mass Effect doesn't have good story? Dragon Age? Even Call of Duty?

This is what I do not like.

They took the balance system of these video games and ported it over to table top. For me that does not work. It spoiled the game.

The influence is there, to deny that is folly.

My wife plays WOW like an addict. Yet she doesn't like 4e for different reasons. If I say WoW is a video game, I am not laying a blanket statement on all 4e players.

I play 4e from time to time to socialize. I am not one of these people that separates 4e players into another room.

Mournblade94 wrote:

Well that is completely unacceptable. I would like to see more proof than a thread, but that burden is not on you. I suspect it is the thread author fabricating a case. If it is not that is utterly unacceptable. I don't even know how a game store would allow that. Have you had any bad experiences at a game store?

I have never played D&D at a game store (I've always been fortunate enough to have friends who played, so I never needed to resort to public play to get my fix). However, I have played at conventions and both seen and heard examples of this very sort of snobbery (and I've heard that I've missed out on the most hostile con environments, since I only really attend PAX). I was also once introduced to someone at a house party, and the topic of D&D came up all of thirty seconds after the introduction. He asked what edition I played, I replied that I played 4th Edition, and his immediate response was, verbatim, "4e sucks, play Pathfinder."

Again, can we not pretend that this isn't a real thing?

Quote:

Actually that is not as simple as you think. Biologists make it a point not to debate creationists because of the simple reason, even though biologists are correct, the creationists convince the uninformed audience THEY are correct. It is one of the most frustrating things ever.

I know this first-hand, but the sense of validation comes from the certainty of being on the right side of the argument, not from winning it (as you note, often an exercise in futility). This is different from liking a game, which is very much a matter of preference, and for which there can be no assurance of being on the "right" side (since no such side exists).

Quote:

I have no responsibility to like a company's product. The company has a responsibility to please customers.

The company has a responsibility to be a successful business, and to whom that company is beholden depends on its structure. Pleasing customers is certainly a tried-and-true route to success, but...

No I do not expect wotc to cater to MY needs. But then they can't expect support from my dollars. It was not just me though it was many. That is part of the price wotc had to pay. The price I had to pay was a new system. I am happier for it.

Wotc extending the branch is not a shame on the customers part. They only responded accordingly to a product they do not like. Wotc might feel it in the bottom line, that is their own fault.

Once again I do not think wotc is there to please me. But they failed a market sector of which I am a part. If they chose to please me, maybe that market sector would still be with them.

Hardly. You're posting in a thread where I was actually accused of being a paid shill for WotC. The people who choose to defend 4e against blind-shotgun attacks like the OP don't need to pass themselves off as anything.

Quote:

They NEED to feel as if the 'other side' is worse so they can feel validated somehow.

Come on.

Nothing would make us happier than if the anti-4e crowd thinned itself out and maybe became a little less radical.

Once again that is the part that is laughable. That is precisely my point. I really do not see that much hate for 4e going on in these forums. I never see hate in the game stores. Where are the haters at the cons? It is a classic case of bias being demonstrated. Fine, Fine. I might give you that 52% of the edition wars is from older fans, and 48% is from 4e. So yes the older fans are responsible. Systems only work 50/50 in theory.

Our choice in game is validated by that game being fun. That's all the validation we'll ever need.

Yes to play the game. I am not talking about PLAY validation, or the only reason you play 4e is because your a martyr. Defending 4e somehow makes you feel like your in the right. A superior position perhaps from the unwashed haters.

What does concern me is why the anti-4e crowd chooses to celebrate any imagined indication that 4e might be doing less than stellar. That is what a need for validation looks like.

A group of people were left behind by a company. I agree the collapse of that company would be a validation. I however feel validated simply because I think WOTC realizes they made a terrible marketing decision. No other edition of D&D had to compete with a previous one in the market place. 4e has to compete. It is very possible the market is favouring the older incarnation.

Because you say so, and because there's a rosy moral message hidden in there, or what?

No side has been worse in the edition wars.

Occam's razor as well as common sense says the same is pretty much applying here. Guess who the Pittsburgh Penguins fans say are worse? The NJ fans. Funny that.

I would raid them, steal their grain, and drink their wine and beer. Than when all was done, I would impale them all on spears and bask in the glow of their burning abbey on my Drakkar's sail as I head for home.

In the meantime, 4e fans are sort of "pilgrims in an unholy land" here, so don't act shocked when some of the locals have trouble biting their tongues. No, I don't endorse any attacks on any system. I might have issues with mechanics or corporate marketing ploys, but I won't tell someone to not play something. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens. This very thread is an example. Also, some players are more apt volley their ignorance and frustration at 4e here, rather than Wizards.com, because there is less resistance. Sure, the knowledgeable fans are going to come defend their game, but they won't have an entire site after them like if they tried...

This is why I find the idea that the older players fling more dirt so laughable. I remember the 4eavengers, in fact that is the word I usually use for people that snipe at older fans. WOTC's site became unlivable at that time. I was a very pro 4e player BEFORE I played the game. Once I played it and realized they made a game for some other type of player, the 4e justice league, 4e daredevil (for those who could not find friends)

That is why now when I hear the whining about 4e getting picked on MORE, it sounds so utterly ridiculous.

4eavengers. I would love to meet them in a game store. I have found I can have a real DISCUSSION about game systems in the game store.

I have a lot of reasons to mistrust Ron Paul, his catering to Creationists among others. That and the fact that frequently he seems bat-crazy as well.

Agreed. Creationist is a deal breaker for me. You cannot be anti-science in this technological age. Creationism in a candidate is an embarrassment for this country.

I can give the climate change deniers a little leeway. Creationists are just deluded.

Matthew Shelton wrote:

I love Pathfinder as what 4th D&D was "meant to be", and the true spiritual successor to D&D 3.5.

[expletive deleted] like this is why the damnable edition war will never end. Why can't you just be happy with Pathfinder without feeling the need to rip at 4E?

Actually no.

Matt had a very valid opinion. The temperature of the thread only increased when someone accused him of edition warring.

Stating your opinion of not liking a game like 4e is NOT edition warring no matter how much one would like it to be.

It's the standard American problem of finding offense where none is intended.

Mournblade94 wrote:

In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.

It's seems it's more "4e players who also play PF defending 4e, while PF players who do not play 4e attack it and call anyone who defends it literally a 4e shill."

This thread does basically the opposite of what you think it does.

However in this particular thread no player of 4e has been labelled a shill. So once again this thread can be used as evidence (anecdotal yes, but all evidence in that argument is anecdotal) to point to bias in the assessment.

Mournblade94 wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

This does not prove the point that you think it proves.

In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.

No. You said it proves that neither "side" is worse than the other. It doesn't. You have a handful of anecdotes, and nothing that reliably generalizes to either population.

Quote:

What pray tell am I laying blame for?

Not being immersed. 4e "fails to immerse" you. You believe this to be a failure on 4e's part, rather than a failure due to some other factor - the mindset with which you approach the game, for instance, or the behavior of your fellow players, or the style of the DM.

Given the similar level of support the two systems provide for immersion, it seems much more plausible to me that any difference in immersion you are experiencing is the result of a factor that actually might have some effect on your level of immersion, rather than the game system, which has precious little influence on immersion compared to, say, the style of game the DM chooses to run.

Certainly the mindset with which I approach the game is not a failure. The failure lies in the mechanics of the game for me. The mechanics fail ME. The hyper concern of balance fails me. The gamist philosophy fails me in the same way the gamist philosophy of WOW players prevents me from becoming immersed in MMO's.

Note this is not the same as me saying the mechanics fail to immerse players. I claim the mechanics fail to immerse me, and that is a fault of the mechanics.

If I find a particular bicycle uncomfortable to ride, the fault lies with the bicycle.

And as to your point of anecdotes. Well that is my point while arguing the people that claim the edition wars is mostly the fault of non 4e players. They have nothing but anecdotes with which to evaluate. My claim is both sides are equally to blame. I have not seen evidence to the contrary. This thread, actually throws a stick in the spokes of the claim that edition wars are mostly the fault of older edition players. To claim either side is more responsible is ridiculous.

I will not however apologize for thinking the mechanics of 4e inferior.

This does not prove the point that you think it proves.

In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.

You are laying blame at the feet of the system when you ought to be looking elsewhere. Don't blame your weapon for missing its mark when you insist on firing over your own shoulder.

What pray tell am I laying blame for?

Perhaps that I play 4e and still don't like it? How is that possible?

The fact remains, for ME, 4e is a system I do not like. That is not my FAULT.

(Scott betts may not have left the above quote)

I am glad this thread is here. Over on enworld there are several threads about grognards and pf players being the main problem in the edition wars. It is nice to see the pf fans defend 4e, really making my point that neither side is worst than the other.

I only play 4e because one of my friends wants me in the group. I don't like the game enough to buy any of the books. My view on 4e is really shaped on the core initial release. I play the new updates but I only know them as far as the avenger I play.

Wotc changed the game to something I do not like, it still feels like a boardgames when I play even now. More than likely it is because it fails to immerse me like pf. If not for pf I would most likely be playing 1st edition again.

Mournblade94 wrote:

Deception and Intrigue went back to mask, Lies went to a ressurected Leira.

Oh, you're my hero. Lleira was always one of my favorites.

In my head, Sivanah is her Golarion homage.

Golarion is great for that! They pay homage to many of the greats before them. Zon Kuthon is the perfect example.

It is just an all around fantastic place. I am attached to my storytelling in the realms, but I run a pure golarion as well for new players.

Actually since the release of Forgotten Realms third edition Strife returned to Bane. In my story Mask was actually vital in betraying Cyric and Shar's plans (working off of the canon from the third Erevis Cale book, Shar absorbed him (as per the book), but Mask's little secret was he was hiding as her shadow (my addition).

Deception and Intrigue went back to mask, Lies went to a ressurected Leira.

Chaos was one of cyrics domains not an actual portfolio, at least according to the Faiths and Pantheons book.

Many thanks for your interest!

I run a pathfinder game where I use the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms in the year 1400 DR, where Mystra was saved and the Spellplague was averted.
I use alot of influence from Golarion, for example I include Abadar as the Son of Helm and Waukeen, who replaces both of their churches.

Now I want to place Cheliax in the area where old Chessenta used to be (in other words, it was always there, and Chessenta never was). Do any of you that are knowledgeable of both realms have any ideas as too the impact this could have? As a point it would be placed on the Sea of Fallen Stars, which is also shared with Cormyr and Marsember.

I am just looking for ideas. I am not sure if I want to include it because a nation like Cheliax could really upset a power balance.

Any of you that would take the time for thoughts, advice, ideas, or suggestions would be appreciated!

Many thanks!